Skip to main content

View Diary: Common Sense: "The carrying of firearms is strictly prohibited" (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We regulate based on public safety (14+ / 0-)

    All of our constitutional rights are subject to regulation.

    Freedom of speech is supposedly our right, but no, you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. No, you can't say whatever you want about someone else and slander them. No, you can't exhort others in treason.

    The Second Amendment is exactly the same. We have a "well regulated militia". It's called the National Guard.

    •  And.... (6+ / 0-)
      The Second Amendment is exactly the same. We have a "well regulated militia". It's called the National Guard.
      And, all the big-talking, 'my-country-love-it-or-leave-it', militia-loving, patriotic gun enthusiasts can join.  
      And it doesn't affect their 2nd amendment rights at all.  
      A perfect match.  N'est-ce pas?

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:44:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kickemout, ban nock, noway2, DavidMS, andalusi

      We can lie and yell fire in a crowded theater - we must pay the consequences.

      That's the subtle difference. We are not restrained from breaking a law, we are punished after the action.

      Some folks look at the speed limit sign and say we can't go over 55. The truth is that we can go over 55, we are not restrained from speeding, we must simply pay the consequences for violating the law.

      This subtle difference is crucial.

      A True Believer has the basic frame of perception of "You cannot do that", and falls into a state of denial when plain facts derail that belief. Just look at the climate change deniers - they believe that humans cannot affect the climate of the planet and so when faced with the basic facts of our rampant string of new high temps, they shut their eyes and plug their ears and scream NANANANANANAAAH.

      I really wish the True Believers in gun control would face the plain fact that sometimes people violate the civil boundaries of others in such a way that the victim either fights back or dies. If that would happen, then maybe we could work together to minimize the mechanisms that lead to the event of such boundary violations. And if THAT was successful... well, I'm not going to look too far ahead since I don't know if even that first wish could be achieved in a decade.

      But it starts with pointing out to others that the law does not restrain you from falsely yelling FIRE in a theater. What the law does is put you in jail after you have done the deed.

      No prior restraint. Ex post facto punishment.

      •  So advocates of new gun regulations are... (13+ / 0-) equated with climate change deniers?

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun May 05, 2013 at 08:28:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are they saying you can't yell fire? (0+ / 0-)

          It's not an all or none. I thought it was clear that the common element was not whether they were an advocate, but whether they claimed that people were being restrained from doing something when the law actually punishes those who violate it.

          Are you getting this?

          It sounds like maybe you want me to be saying that advocates are like deniers maybe so you can turn me into a straw man and knock me down.

          I'm commenting on the mistaken understanding that people have of what the law does. The law against going too fast doesn't make it so you can't go too fast, and saying "you can't go too fast" would be wrong.

          The law against hiding a passport of child in your boot so you can then go bring a child from a foreign country back to the usa does not stop you from doing that, it just punishes you if you get caught doing that.

          Is that a little more clear to you now? So please don't straw man me.

          •  You are the one who brought... (7+ / 0-)

            ...climate change deniers and the slur "True Believers," meaning "fanatics,"  into this conversation, not me. So I am trying to determine what your purpose in doing that was. Pretending that it is I am who am making "straw man" arguments is a good example of the upsidedownism which plagues much of the gun regulation debate.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:35:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point is this. (0+ / 0-)

              Does the speed limit law restrain you from speeding?
              A) Yes
              B) No

              If you answered A, then you do not understand what the law does. I predict that every time someone doesn't follow the law you will scream and howl for new laws. Perhaps you think the rivers of ink will reach up from the pages of the law books and hold back the hands of a lawbreaker in the moment before a law is violated.

              If you answered B, then you understand that the law does not handcuff you before you act, you understand that the law uses The Stick, to punish you if you violate the law. You understand that the law punishes you with a ticket if you are caught breaking the speed limit. You understand that the law punishes you with incarceration if you are caught with prohibited drugs, rather than prevent you from making the purchase. You understand that the law doesn't reach into your mouth and gag you before you falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you understand that it does put you on trial and punish you after you do so.

              Well Meteor Blades?

              •  Your argument is then, presumably... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...that laws are not deterrents. That the possibility of being penalized for breaking the law does not stop people from committing crimes. I will argue that laws to restrain people from both speeding and murder.

                Not everybody, obviously. And, in some cases, large numbers of people violate the law: smoking weed, for instance.  

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Mon May 06, 2013 at 05:42:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Idiocy on stilts (9+ / 0-)

        If the "self-defense" here is to be achieved by a large number of guns being available (the possibility of that is another unproven assumption), then we must look at the side effects of a large number of guns being available.

        The side effects are already known. Increased violence, increased suicide, increased accidental deaths and woundings, and a vastly increased number of weapons in the hands of criminals who obtain them by theft or burglary.

        What you are saying here, in essence, is that "I want the freedom to have a gun because I cherish the diminutive chance I would be able to successfully defend myself with it, and I don't give a damn about the increased number of deaths the free availability of firearms is known to cause." Or to put it more briefly, "I'm willing to see several other people die or be injured so that I can cherish my dreams of playing Rambo." That's sociopathic.

        You don't have the maturity to accept that there are sometimes situations in which nothing useful can be done. Being on the wrong end of a gun carried by a criminal is one of those situations. Unless you are very, very lucky, and willing to gamble your life and the lives of others who may be with you, you are going to be doing exactly what that criminal wants you to do.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:10:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not subtle (8+ / 0-)

        Arguing based upon your self-admitted "subtle difference" falls completely into the oh so common trap of allowing the right wing to control the conversation. The situation really isn't subtle at all: we have a system that is broken and thousands pay the ultimate price every year.

        No one is realistically expecting that all guns will be destroyed, so ... Any type of gun regulation will be in exactly the same category as other regulations. It might make it more difficult to violate the regulation, but those that chose to do so will still be able to. And, if caught, will be liable to pay the penalty.

        If background checks are required and someone does not qualify, they will turn to illegal sources. If conceal carry laws are tightened, people will still have the ability to break the law. If assault rifles and high capacity magazines are outlawed, they will still be able to be found.

        American history shows that as a culture, we have an understanding that guns need to be regulated. This supposedly American heritage and "Constitutionalist" arguments have really been concocted by the gun industry and their NRA shills only over the course of the last 30 years.  An overwhelming majority of Americans understand that changes need to be made.

        That is the point.

      •  Banning guns..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        would certainly be one way to "minimize the mechanisms that lead to the event of such boundary violations".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site